Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 30, 2012, 10:56 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(6667)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

“If the lack of Arctic sea ice continues, one long-term benefit, though, could be to shipping, where summers free of ice will allow ships to traverse previously impassable routes. It will also allow for better exploration of mineral and oil reserves.”

“However, other scientists report that global warming doesn't fully explain what's been going on in the Arctic. A recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, led by John Michael Wallace of the University of Washington, found that most of the recent reduction in sea ice is due to natural variability.”

Given that this is their last word, maybe they do know what they are doing,

Very few people doubt that the globe is warming. The problem is that the more science that is actually done (rather than computer modeling) the more evidence we have that the temperature increases we are seeing are actually tied to things OTHER than just man made CO2. It makes people skeptical by default, just like the following 40,000+ US Scientists are for example:

3,805 atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

935 computer and mathematical scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

5,812 physics and aerospace scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4,822 chemistry scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

2,965 biology and agriculture scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

3,046 medical scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

10,102 engineering and general scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

If you and factsrfun get a chance to scientifically respond to and rebut the paper and the 132 references to studies and evidence referenced in it, that would be great. Demonstrate how and why all this research and evidence is wrong so we can share it with the public and help them understand.

Still waiting for you to discuss/rebut the paper and the 132 studies referenced in it for me.

(Hint) Declarations of my sanity, ability to tell the truth, references to the LA Times and the Koch Foundation and your personal assumptions won't be acceptable to the public any more than they are to me.

Did you even bother to be open minded enough to examine the research studies listed in the paper I linked you to? They were done by SCIENTISTS-about the "state of science".

I'm sure you meant to say CO2-carbon dioxide instead of "carbon".

Science acknowledges that besides human activity, there are other drivers to the climate such as: (external) regular variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun; changes in solar thermal output; fluctuating levels of solar magnetic activity; impacts by extra-terrestrial objects, and (internal) variations in the Earth systems itself.

"Figure 3 shows comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity. Many scientists find that these correlations are convincing evidence that the sun has contributed to the global warming of the 20th century. Some say that as much as 1/3 of the global warming may be the result of an increase in solar energy."

Just in case you're too stubborn or lazy to read the article, the graph shows that the sea surface temperatures mimic the solar activity of the sun almost exactly.

The albedo effect has to do with the degree to which a surface reflects energy.

Water surfaces reflect only a small amount of solar energy. An object that reflects very little sunlight absorbs a great deal. Water has a low albedo but high absorption. Because of these unique properties and because oceans cover about 70 percent of the earth, water has a strong modifying effect on weather and climate.

Thus, increased radiation/energy from the sun causes increased ocean temperatures. Increased ocean temperatures can result in increased C02 in the air because warm water does not dissolve as much C02 as colder water.

"There is clear evidence that Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 0.5°C over the last 100 years. However, there is some uncertainty as to the causes of this temperature increase, as well as what its short- and long-term effects will be on regional and global scales. Predictive computer models indicate that given a steady rise in levels of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, there will be a corresponding increase in surface temperatures. Yet surprisingly, despite a 30 percent increase in carbon dioxide levels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures haven't risen as much as the models predicted. Why? Because greenhouse gases aren't the only influence on temperature. There are many other variables--such clouds, aerosols, and the ocean--that also affect temperature."

There is a mathematical relationship between 'reflected energy and absorbed energy' and thus you will also accept that the darker ocean will always absorb more 'energy' than any ice cover. Now, I can only presume that you also accept the notion of a "positive feedback loop", so where does this increasingly joined up thinking take you, I wonder ?!

The Albedo Effect has regional implications, not global. The fact remains that scientists have not been able to determine which came first in the "positive feedback cycle".

I'm not arguing that man made C02 doesn't contribute to global warming. I'm saying that other powerful natural drivers exist too and that they need to be better studied and understood before we go attempting to manipulate our climate one way or another.

I'm sorry Betsy that though you now accept 'The Albedo Effect', you still seem to want to think that it only "has regional effects, not global" !!! Consider : Which "regions" may be most effected & that The Climate / Ocean System IS "global" !!

What does The North Atlantic Gyre for example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre ), tell you ?! That oceans are "regional" ?!! I think NOT !!! Nothing that I'm going to say is going to upend any of your 'arguments' but re. The Oceans, please do try to engage with the following :

Sigh. How can I explain this to someone who prefers to do all my thinking for me and then respond to his own made up conclusions?

The "Albedo Effect" varies for every different region of this planet. It is merely a measurement of the ratio of how much radiation a given surface absorbs vs how much it reflects. The energy transfer/non transfer ALONG WITH OTHER CONDITIONS determine whether conditions in that given area or region remains constant or changes.

Do those regions and the changes/constants in them affect one another and interact globally? YES for crying out loud. But the "Albedo Effect" is a measurement of something, not a driver or CAUSE of anything.

OK 'BetsyR', thanx for joining me on "some kind of 'joined up thinking' journey as per your comment below. You have half a point when you say that I did not read all your comments on this thread. I did that once and the less said thereafter the better. We shall agree to disagree and we have never quite recovered from your very first ever comment to me being a de facto accusation of plagiarism. "Morning shows the day" as my Dad [RIP] used to say.

Keep sighing 'BetsyR' - because you are actually doing exactly that which you're trying to accuse me of doing and you're constructing 'straw men' again ! The Albedo Effect is directly related to the capacity of any given body of water to reflect / absorb energy, which does indeed actually vary from location to location, dependent on various other factors such as turbidity. It is not just a "measurement" - so please don't 'cry out loud' so readily.

The Albedo Effect can be expressed mathematically as a ratio and the "Effect" is a factor in the "positive feedback loop" of an increased ice cap melt ; revealing more darker water surface ; which in turns absorbs more and reflects less energy ; thus the water warms up to a greater extent ; such that the ice melts to a greater extent & the cycle continues and even accelerates.

You said that "The Albedo Effect has regional implications, not global." & I disagreed. You said "the sea surface temperatures mimic the solar activity of the sun almost exactly." & I'm saying that is not all the picture & the correlation had an explanation. You wish to accentuate existent external factors such as The Sun to explain Global Temperature Increases & I regard Human Behaviour as another driver & cause and indeed A Most Significant Cause right now. I could append links galore but will restrict myself to the following comment#, 'forum-post' & link :

"You wish to accentuate existent external factors such as The Sun to explain Global Temperature Increases & I regard Human Behaviour as another driver & cause and indeed A Most Significant Cause right now."

I acknowledge human behavior in many of my replies here, including the one where I mentioned solar activity and sea surface temperatures-which should have indicated to you that I ALSO know it's "not all the picture and the correlation had an explanation".

Instead you chose to ignore that fact and condescend to treating me like a child who needed to be led to some kind of "joined up thinking" journey. YOU constructed a straw man out of me by either choosing to ignore what I had actually said previously, or not reading it at all.

We are where we are. Intended or not. But the Earth has it's own systems that affect climate too and we don't fully understand how those work yet. For example, if the Earth happens to be compensating for OUR additions to the atmosphere, and we jump in doing something vastly different, could we make things worse? We once thought antibiotics were the greatest thing ever because they "made us well".....and then we found out they also affected our immunities in worse ways.

Again, co2 is a naturally occurring gas that is absolutely crucial to life on this planet. This planet has been bathed in levels FAR higher than the ones we have today as well as MUCH lower ones. And yet here we are.

Consider your view as due to low exposure. In one way you are quite correct - she is inflexible - she has her program - PERIOD. So agree with her or spend your time beating your head against a granite wall.

[-] 1 points by Proteus (383) from Quebec, QC 0 minutes ago

Strange, my first impression when I read her post was to write "from what kind of planet are you? Are you an alien?" or something like that. And it was not negative in my vision, I saw her as sparkling steel, some invincible thing that got a different mind set than most people, maybe she is an alien and can't comprehend our way of thinking, even if we come to the same conclusions. I'm half joking, but I think she is allright for now.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Yes, we can do something about OUR contributions to C02, but the earth and the sun and our oceans all interacted with each other long before we got here and caused all kinds of extreme weather on their own. C02 causes warming, and keeps the earth inhabitable for all life.

But the fact is that our planet has shorter "warm" periods than it has "cold" ones. Warmer periods produce more food, vegetation, health, and other benefits that we lose during cold periods. Just how much CAN we affect the climate and SHOULD we strive to "control" it to some degree? Even scientists cannot explain the complex system entirely and they are willing to admit that there are things we simply do not know enough about.

The Sun has cycles we've known about for a long time, but we're just now beginning to understand how those cycles affect our planet now, and how they have in the past.

August 2012 NASA-
"The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research."

My point is that even if we do control or even eliminate "human" C02 contributions, the fact remains that the earth has been much hotter and much colder than it is now. There's no guarantee that it won't do the exact same things again with or without our help.

According to this NASA article the temperature has increased 0.5 degrees in the past 100 years. "However, there is some uncertainty as to the causes of this temperature increase, as well as what its short- and long-term effects will be on regional and global scales."

(UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE CAUSES AND WHAT THE SHORT AND LONG TERM EFFECTS WILL BE. Yet ZenDog and others will tell you there is NO uncertainty at all and that they KNOW what the effects will be)

The article goes on:

"Predictive computer models indicate that given a steady rise in levels of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, there will be a corresponding increase in surface temperatures. Yet surprisingly, despite a 30 percent increase in carbon dioxide levels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures haven't risen as much as the models predicted. Why? Because greenhouse gases aren't the only influence on temperature. There are many other variables--such clouds, aerosols, and the ocean--that also affect temperature."

Temperatures have NOT risen in the way the computer models predicted that they SHOULD based on a 30% increase in carbon dioxide levels.

I AGREE with you that we need to step back our contribution to those levels. If a 30% increase hasn't produced more than 0.5 temperature increase, we'd have to increase our contribution by MORE, not less, to arrive at the "one or 2 degree more" that you have no problem with. I certainly haven't advocated for such a thing!

My point with Zendog and others here is that they act like the 0.5 degree increase has already doomed us. Scientists do a study and state that this current melting is due to natural variability and yet in another thread factsrfun claims that "it has begun and that total melt is inevitable".

I'm only trying to introduce some reason and OTHER scientific evidence into the discussion-because surely intelligent people WANT to know ALL the facts and have ALL the information...don't they? Apparently the ones here only want facts and information that agree with their positions. Everything else is evil lies and they feel compelled to step in and warn you for even responding to me civilly. How sad.

First, I don't even look at my rating number. I'm not here to gain popularity or approval. I'm here to offer a differing opinion and additional facts and information to the discussion. I appreciate your advice on diplomacy, I truly do, but if you knew me personally you'd most likely find my restraint here amusing...maybe even shocking. (grin. Redhead. nuff said)

Something I find to be rampant in this forum is the idea that if someone doesn't advocate in the exact same way, or use the expected or accepted terminology, it is automatically assumed that you are representing the exact OPPOSITE point of view. For example, if I question the degree of global warming that man has actually caused-and I mean in raw numbers and with evidence to back it up-then I must surely be a corporate shill who loves killing the earth and wants to destroy it. Since when did questioning everything-and I do question everything in order to find out the root truth for myself-become such a horrific thing? Isn't that better than being a blind sheep simply going along with the herd?

I think it's the worst, and most damaging, kind of communication ego to assume what someone else thinks and attack, respond, or even reply to them as if your assumptions are surely the most accurate and reliable things in the world! Don't bother to clarify, or ask, or verify what your opponent actually IS thinking or DOES believe...(or worse, tell them they are lying if you do ask and don't get the answer you wanted) just assume and attack and get those talking points in. It's all about WINNING some kind of debate, scoring points, or tearing down your opponent it seems. No intelligent, thoughtful outsiders would waste much time talking to a person like that, much less want to join a group where such behavior is celebrated or encouraged.

Finally, again, scientists are just beginning to understand the complexities related to our environment. For example, this article shows until RECENTLY, scientists "have been unable to tell whether changes in the Earth's orbit were affecting the temperature of the ocean more than the amount of ice at the Poles, or vice-versa."

The more we learn, the more complex we realize our atmosphere and climate are and how much fluctuation they have undergone NATURALLY in the past. Those things are crucial to determining how we as human beings can, or even IF we can, affect or even change things in the future.

Good morning zen dog, you seem to have put some thought into this, may I suggest am explanation.

Given any thought at all it is easy to see the economic case shifting against doing nothing so why are the money people still so dead set against it?

I think it is based in the system itself, by “system” here I am considering the entire world economic system not just those in charge. Within the system controlling forces act to move economic power from the many to the few, nothing new here. What is often focused on is the flow of money it’s easy to see how the system has been rigged to flow money toward the holders of money. What is not so clear nor often discussed is the cost side, shifting economic power can also be done by shifting costs. In the case of climate change the powers that be ignore the costs they do not have to pay, the cost of climate change will be the lives of those near the bottom of the power chain, even if it’s not the incremental cost is paid by those at the bottom not the top where the decisions are made.

Any effort to apply those costs fairly runs straight into the “confiscation” crowd and makes people fighting for survival into jackbooted thugs, stealing the hard earned profits of the oil companies and causing people to pay more for gas.

I believe that truth will cure this problem, the truth about money what it means, what we let it buy and if we use our minds to decide things or just shrug our shoulders and let the “marketplace” do it.

People with the coin tell us we should not plan or look at results, we should just work harder, cause if the little people don’t work hard there will be nothing for the owners to take, and that is what life is all about. Nations stand in the way everybody trying to get a good deal for themselves fighting over the power that money brings, if we are to save the world, we must take money down a notch or two.

Well as we both know the immediate need is the removal of the Republican Party from public policy decisions. I believe this can be done by exposing them for the "cut taxes for the rich no matter what" party that they are, we tell people they have a choice, grow a set and levy a tax or see your parents starve.

Beyond that and doing that will require new communication paths than those controlled by the money. Tech provides that, however it also introduces clutter, if OWS using all of their tools the smart people that have been sp vital to getting us this far may find a way to cut through the clutter and spread effective messages. Which could serve as a counter to the media we have now, we could push them toward truth, but only if we have simple, clear and truthful messages. IMHO

It is the discussion we must have will we talk about what should be done and choose wisely or will we simply let those with wealth and ingrained interest do the deciding.

We must introduce the concept of balance to the tax system not just up or down, the key is are you getting the results that create a larger, stronger middle class or not, if you're not change the tax balance.

Climate change helps us to know who wants to do best for all and who has money as their top priority. There are some that still question evolution so reducing their influence is the best we can do.

It's tough to reach people who have been conditioned to distrust facts, however I see your point.

Most people, around the world and in the US, live near the water, climate change will become more and more difficult to deny, there and as you say farms, people care about farms, we haven't left our roots that far.

I think a big question remains, that even if we do all accept the danger and even that action should be done, will we be willing to overcome our conditioning about money and government, exactly what should be the center of power in our society. If we continue to allow money to rule I think it will take much longer to get something done. .

As your earlier comment pointed out the guy that was too alarmest a few years ago we know now was conservative. There are those that look at what we must do and think we will, I look at the whole system to see where the forces lie, just as I knew there would be no budget deal, I do not believe we will do anything about this, we will talk about it, but it will cost a lot of money and let those with the money make all the decisions in the name of freedom, so we should be looking at what to do when the ice is all gone more so than how to stop it as individuals.

If we stop the money and take the power back we might try to do something, but we have had public funding for elections for over ten years in AZ but people still elect Republicans so it really hasn't changed much here if anything stuff like SB 1070 says it's getting worst.